1 / 11

Guidelines Revisions

Guidelines Revisions. Overview of Issues, and Detailed Discussion of Estimating Lifetime Savings. Overview. We are in the process of updating the Guidelines. Previously, the RTF had discussed regularly reviewing this “living document”. Goals for Today

joanna
Download Presentation

Guidelines Revisions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Guidelines Revisions Overview of Issues, and Detailed Discussion of Estimating Lifetime Savings

  2. Overview • We are in the process of updating the Guidelines. • Previously, the RTF had discussed regularly reviewing this “living document”. • Goals for Today • Provide an overview of the topics up for change in the Guidelines. • Introduce the “biggest” issue: estimating lifetime savings. • After this meeting: Subcommittee will work through the details and bring back a proposed revised set of Guidelines.

  3. Current List of Guidelines Issues • Big issues • Changes needed based on resolution of “lifetime savings” issue • Make any parallel changes needed in cost guideline • Create Cost-effectiveness Guideline • Easy issues • Clarify requirement to include technical measure specification that can guide delivery verification • Clarify or remove “alternate” method for last-in savings • Savings for “maintenance” measures, e.g. irrigation nozzles, add example in current practice definition • Add “Publications” as cost Source Type • Refer to SIW values without using the term “default” • Use a different standard protocol example now that Fan VFD abandoned • Set a maximum sunset date of 1 year for provisional. If substantial progress has not been made on implementing the approved RTF research plan, the measure should be considered for de-activation. • 5.4.6.1.3. Provisional UES Measures, if no research results, they are treated in impact evaluation like Other UES. • Uncategorized issues • Add “Other UES” as a savings estimation method • Re-visit NTG issue? • Edits to clarify the differences between claim and delivery verification • Clarification to section 3.4.2’s quality standards? • Adding discussion of statistical characterization of uncertainty standards; to an appendix?

  4. Estimating Lifetime Savings

  5. Background and History • Previous discussions (subcommittee and RTF) reached the conclusion that all “lifetime” savings guidance would be isolated in the yet to be written cost-effectiveness (CE) guideline. • Savings Guidelines would represent 1st year savings. • CE Guidelines would require separate estimate of “average lifetime” savings • Not consistent with the new Measure Interaction (“Option 3 Last-in”) strategy adopted for Weatherization and HP measures • Method does not estimate 1st year savings.

  6. Problem: Reliability? • Issues with Lifetime Savings estimation • Measure interactions • RUL < EUL • Always for pre-conditions baseline • When measure EUL > current practice RUL (CFL vs. melded average bulb) • Solving these problems requires going beyond the directly observable data • Savings guidelines use quality standards to assess reliability • Hard to apply these standards to things you cannot observe • For example • Package of measures used to estimate measure interactions • Baseline at the end of a measure’s RUL

  7. A look at the Issues, by Savings Estimation Method • Measure Interactions • Custom measures – The Easy Case • No measure interaction problem as savings are based on observed conditions at specific sites, including any caused by prior measure delivery • UES measures – The Hard Case • Requires an adjustment to account for measure interactions (beyond what we can observe) • Standard Protocol measures • Like custom, estimates reflect observed conditions at specific sites at the time any measure is delivered • Or, like UES, where an estimate of site conditions is made to get at “typical” conditions. • RUL < EUL • All methods require estimate for baseline conditions at end of RUL

  8. Do We Need to Tweak the Primary Savings Guideline Objective? • Current guidelines • Reliable estimates of UES savings and reliable methods for custom and standard protocol • Savings guidelines imply that the savings estimate is entered in ProCost as first-year savings • RUL may be modeled for cost-effectiveness (SummaryRUL Sheet) • Should we more directly state the primary savings estimation objective? • Option 1: Grid savings • First-year savings persist for the EUL (RUL not an issue because the Grid doesn’t care why efficiency increases) • Option 2: Program savings • 2a: First-year • 2b: Lifetime - one average or two averages (RUL and after RUL)

  9. Strategy for Guideline Revisions Related to Lifetime Savings • Savings Guideline • Apply quality standards to: • Model (method) calibration • Input parameters other than measure interaction and RUL • Describe appropriate measure interactions (Last-in) and RUL methods • UES estimates are approved but not subject to quality standard • Consistent with “tweaked” primary objective • Cost-Effectiveness Guideline • Describe appropriate RUL baseline methods • No Quality Standards, just like Cost and EUL Guidelines

  10. Is RUL worth the complication? • Guidelines currently make a vague reference to RULbut do not yet describe any methods. • Does RUL make enough of a difference to justify the additional work and reduction in transparency of the calculations? • If program operators just book the first-year savings, i.e., savings during the RUL period, have we made any real progress? • Cost-effectiveness would be improved, but RTF doesn’t approve cost-effectiveness.

  11. Next Steps • Subcommittee to work through each issue • Volunteers? • Plan to wrap up subcommittee’s proposed guidelines edits by early next year (April or May decision)

More Related